Always on the Rocks
MEDITATIVENESS AND SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE.
YET PAINTING A PICTURE, WRITING A POEM, AND SOLVING A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM ALL BRING THE SAME JOY. THE SAME JOY!
WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO BE MEDITATIVE AND A SCIENTIST?
WHY HAS THERE NEVER BEEN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE INNER AND THE OUTER SCIENCES, THE SCIENCE OF GENTLENESS AND LOVE AND THE SCIENCE OF AGGRESSION AND DEATH, LIVE IN HARMONY?
THE VERY EFFORT TO RECONCILE THE POLAR opposites is wrong -- you will never succeed in it. It is like trying to reconcile day and night, it is like trying to reconcile life and death. You need not reconcile them, you have only to see that they ARE reconciled. Day and night are moving perfectly in rhythm; life and death are like two wings of existence.
Once you see that the polar opposites can't exist separately, once you have seen that reconciliation is not needed at all, that they are already reconciled, that awareness will help you to move from one pole to another without any problem. They are totally different phenomena -- polar opposites, but all polar opposites are also complementaries.
Science is concentration: it is mind, it is effort.
Meditation or religion is a totally different world: it is relaxation, it is let-go -- it is not concentration at all. It is not one-pointedness, it is no-pointedness. So how can you reconcile them? How do you reconcile work and rest? But you work hard in the day, and at night the rest comes of its own accord. You have earned it; your hard work brings rest.
Philosophically reconciliation is not possible: work cannot be rest, rest cannot be work. If you try to create a synthesis you will destroy both, the beauty of both. Work is work, rest is rest. But work done well brings rest, and if you have rested well in the night; in the morning you will feel so vital, so alive, so full of energy, that work is needed. Rest brings work, work brings rest -- it is a circle. Reconciliation is already there: day brings night, night brings day; life brings death, death brings life. They are half-circles; with both together the circle is perfect and complete. But please don't try to reconcile them in theory, in philosophy.
In existence watch, and see how polar opposites are functioning together, hand in hand, as complementaries. That has not been done yet; in fact, humanity was not mature enough to do it up to now. Everything needs a particular time, a particular maturity, in which to be done.
The East has lived religiously -- that is one pole -- and because IT has lived religiously it has not been able to produce science. The West has lived scientifically, and because of its science it has lost track of religion. Now for the first time, the East is no more East and the West is no more West. The earth is becoming one: the earth is becoming one. global village. This is the time when the reconciliation can be seen, can be understood.
Man is entering into a new phase; a new consciousness is to dawn. For at least ten thousand years, as far as consciousness is concerned, nothing new has happened. There have been Buddhas and there have been Albert Einsteins, but we are still waiting for a Buddha who is also an Albert Einstein or an Albert Einstein who is also a Buddha. The day is coming closer and closer. Albert Einstein in his last days was very much interested in meditation, in religion. His last days were full of wonder. He said in his old age, "I used to think when I was young that sooner or later all the mysteries of existence would be solved, and I worked hard. But now I can say that the more we know, the more existence turns out to be mysterious. The more we know, the less we know and the more we become aware of the vastness...."
Science has not been able to demystify existence. Now this is recognized not by ordinary technicians but by geniuses, because they are the pioneers; they can see the dawn very close by, they are the prophets. Albert Einstein says that science has failed in demystifying existence, that on the contrary it has mystified things even more.
For example, it was so easy in the old days, just a hundred years ago, for the scientist to say that all is matter. Now matter has disappeared; in neo-physics there is no entity called matter. The deeper the physicist went into the world of matter, the more matter was not to be found at all: it is pure energy. How to define energy now? Is it material? Energy cannot be material; energy is something totally different from matter. Matter is static, energy is dynamic; matter is a noun, energy is a verb. Matter is measurable. That is exactly the meaning of the word 'matter': it comes from 'measure', the root means 'measurable'. Matter can be measured, that's why it is called matter. Energy is immeasurable, it cannot be called matter. And as the physicist has entered into the world of energy, he has become more and more puzzled; never before has he been so puzzled.
Mystics have always been in awe before existence. The physicist is for the first time in awe, because he has for the first time touched something very vital otherwise he was just looking from the outside. A stone is just a stone from the outside. The physicist now knows that the stone is not just a stone: it contains universes. A single small pebble that you can hold in your hand contains so much atomic energy that the whole universe can grow out of it, contains so much atomic energy that the whole universe can be destroyed by it. It is not just a pebble any more and it is not solid any more. You are holding it in your hand and you know it is solid, but your knowing is no longer scientific. It only appears solid; it is liquid. And it looks so available, manipulatable; you can do things with it. But you don't know its mysteries which are not manipulatable, and the mysteries are really immense -- almost as immense as the mystery of God itself.
The modern physicist is using the language of the mystics for the first time. Eddington said, "The universe no longer looks like a thing but like a thought." This, from the mouth of a scientist, a Nobel prize-winner -- the universe looks like a thought and not like a thing? That means the universe is more consciousness than matter. And matter has been analyzed, our penetration has become deeper; we have come across atoms, electrons, neutrons -- and we are utterly mystified, at a loss even to express what we have come across. We don't have the language, the right language for it, because we have never known it.
Now the right language has to be found in the words of the mystics: a Buddha will be helpful, a Lao Tzu will be helpful And scientists ARE looking into the words of the Buddhas to find the right language, because these are the people who have been talking about paradox, mystery. And now science is coming across paradoxes.
The greatest paradox is that the electron behaves in such a mysterious way that the scientist has no language to express it. It behaves simultaneously as a particle and as a wave. This is impossible, inconceivable for the mind. Either something is a particle or it is a wave; the same thing cannot be both at the same time.
You know Euclidean geometry: either something is a point or something is a line; one thing cannot be a point and a line together at the same time. A line means many points following each other in sequence; a single point cannot function like a line. But that's now electrons are functioning -- simultaneously as a point and as a line, as a particle and as a wave. What to make of it? How to say it?
The scientist is dumb. Now he knows that the mystics, who have always been talking in paradoxes, who have been saying God is far away and very close by, must be saying something through their experience. The mystics who used to say that life and death are one, not two, for the first time are becoming relevant to the scientist's mind. A new science is arising which says it is a science of uncertainty. NO more certainty! Certainty seems to be too gross.
Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a 'perhaps'. If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not.
It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?"
Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity.
Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: SAPEKSHAWAD -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events.
That's what modern science is saying, that there are no things in the world, but only events. And we cannot say anything absolutely, we cannot say, "This is so." Whenever somebody says absolutely, "This is so," he is behaving foolishly. In the past he was thought to be a man of knowledge; the more certain he was, the more it was thought that he knew. The uncertain person, the hesitating person, was thought to be ignorant.
That's why Mahavira could not influence the world very much; he came too early, he arrived before his time. Now is the time for him -- now he will be understood by the scientist, by the highest intelligence in the world. But he was talking to people, the ordinary masses, who could not understand his SYADAWAD -- his perhaps-ism. People wanted certain knowledge: "Is there a God?" And Mahavira would say, "Perhaps. Yes -- in one way it can be said yes, and in another it can be said no. And both are right together, simultaneously."
Now the time has come. Ananda Prabhu, don't try to reconcile things -- that will be a false phenomenon. Just watch, just look deep into things as they are. They are already reconciled; there is no conflict in existence. All contraries are complementaries.
YOU SAY: MEDITATIVENESS AND SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE.
If you try to reconcile them it is not only difficult but impossible. It cannot be done. You will go mad -- the very effort to reconcile them will drive you crazy. Avoid such an effort. Rather, on the contrary, simply watch.
Life is paradoxical. It is already a synthesis of paradoxes; the opposites are already meeting in it. All that we need is a pure mirror-like consciousness, so that whatsoever life is it is reflected. And you will see in that reflection the meeting of the opposites: the meeting of East and West, the meeting of religion and science.
YOU SAY: YET PAINTING A PICTURE, WRITING A POEM, AND SOLVING A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM ALL BRING THE SAME JOY. THE SAME JOY!
Yes, they can -- because art is just in the middle between both, equidistant from religion and science. Art has the qualities of both. One aspect of art is scientific, the technological aspect. Hence the scientist can paint and enjoy painting, and will have the same joy; and the mystic can also paint and will have the same joy as in prayer, as in meditation -- although both are doing the same thing, the mystic's painting will be totally different from the scientist's painting.
You can look: modern painting in the West is too much under the influence of technology. It has lost beauty; it is no longer helpful in bringing you to the divine presence that permeates existence. On the contrary, it simply reflects the insane mind of man. Looking at Western painting you will feel dizzy, nauseous, ill.
Zen Masters have also painted, but their painting is totally different. Watching a Zen painting you will feel uplifted; a feeling of subtle joy will arise in you. You would like to dance or sing or play on your flute. Zen painting comes from the other side, the mystic's side. Picasso, Dali, and others come from the side of science. Now, there is no similarity between a Picasso painting and the painting of a Zen Master, no similarity. They are two totally different worlds, and the reason is that the painters are different.
Yes, Ananda Prabhu, you may be feeling the same joy in painting, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem. It is all mind. Solving a scientific problem is mind; your poem will also be more or less mathematical, logical. It will have only the form of poetry but its spirit will be prose.
That's why in the West poetry is dying, painting has become ugly, sculpture is no longer representative of nature. Something is immensely missing: the spirit, the very spirit of art is missing. Looking at a Zen painting you will be overwhelmed; something from the beyond Will start showering on you.
Have you watched a Zen painting closely? There are a few things you will be surprised to see. Human figures are very small, so small that if you don't look minutely you will miss them. Trees are big, mountains are big, the sun and moon, rivers and waterfalls are big, but human beings are very small.
In Western painting the human being is very big; he covers the whole canvas. Now this is not right, this is not proportionate, this is not true. The human being covering the whole canvas is very egoistic -- but the painter IS egoistic. The Zen Master is right: man is only a tiny part in this great universe. The mountains are big and the waterfalls are big and the trees are big and the stars and the moon and the sun -- and where is man?
Just the other day I was looking at a Zen painting. The men were so small, two small figures crossing a bridge, that I would have missed them because tall mountains and trees were covering the whole painting. But there was a note underneath the painting saying, "Please don't miss: there are two human figures on the bridge." I had to look very closely -- yes, they were there, two human figures, very small, walking hand in hand, passing over the bridge. This is the right proportion; this is a non-egoistic painting.
In Western paintings you will find the whole canvas covered. In Zen painting only a small part of the canvas is covered, and the remaining part is empty. It looks like a wastage: if you are going to make such a small painting, why not use a small canvas?
Why use such a big canvas which covers the whole wall, and just in the corner make a small painting? But the Zen people say that's how things are: "Emptiness is so much all around. The whole sky is empty -- how can we leave out the sky? If we leave out the sky the painting will be untrue."
Now no Western painting has that vision, that we are surrounded by emptiness: the earth is very small, humanity a very small part of the earth, and infinite emptiness all around....
To be true, to be existentially true, the emptiness cannot be left outside; it has to be there.
This is a different vision, from a different side.
Zen painting is not done in the Western way. In Western painting you will find that the painter goes on improving: over one coat of paint there will be another coat of paint and still another coat of paint, and he goes on improving and touching up and doing things.
Zen painters cannot do that; that is impossible. They use a certain kind of paper, rice- paper, on which you can make only one stroke. You cannot correct it; you have to leave it as it is. The paper is so thin that if you try to correct it the whole thing will be lost. Why is rice-paper being used? So that the mind has nothing to do -- the mind is constantly trying to improve, to make things better. It has to be from the heart, a single stroke. If your heart is full of it, it will come right. But you cannot correct it; correction comes from the mind.
Zen painting is never corrected; if you correct it your correction will always show that you are not a Master. It has to come out of your meditativeness, your silence. Your feeling of the moment is spread on the rice-paper.
Art is just in the middle, equidistant from science and religion. It can be both. It can be scientific art, as it is in the West -- that's what you mean, Ananda Prabhu. It can be religious art: you don't know anything about that yet, because before you can know anything about it you will have to know what meditation is.
Meditation is not a state of concentration; it is not a state of mind at all. It is a state of total mindlessness -- and not a state of sleep either. No mind, no sleep; no mind, but total awareness. Out of that awareness you bring a different quality to music, to painting, to poetry. And out of that meditativeness you can bring a totally different quality to science too. But before that can happen we will need large numbers of meditative people around the earth.
That's what my work is. That's what I am trying to do here: to create meditators. That is the first requirement. If we want to bring a new world vision where science and religion can meet, we will have to create the foundation first; only then can the temple be raised on it. Meditation has to be the foundation.
And don't try to reconcile things: just become more meditative. In your meditation is reconciliation, because in your meditation you become able to see that the contradictions are only apparent, that the contraries are only enemies on the surface but deep down they are friends. It is like two friends playing chess: on the surface they are enemies, but deep down they are friends. That's why they are playing chess -- they are friends; but because they are playing chess they are pretending to be enemies.
This is the LEELA of existence, the play of existence. God has divided himself into two, because that is the only way to play hide-and-seek. k is a very beautiful play if you understand it as play. Don't take it too seriously because then you will not be able to see the playfulness of it.
You ask me: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO BE MEDITATIVE AND A SCIENTIST?
It is not. To be meditative is difficult for everybody; it is not only a question of the scientist. Ananda Prabhu is a scientist. But it is the same difficulty as a businessman will feel, it is the same difficulty as the carpenter will feel. It is not just something new to the scientist. Maybe quantitatively it is a little more difficult, because his whole mind knows only one way of functioning, that of concentration. He knows only one way to use the mind: to focus it on a certain object. And meditation means remaining unfocussed, just remaining open, open for everything.
While listening to me you can listen in two ways. The scientific way is to concentrate -- what I am saying, concentrate on it. That means close your mind to everything else: the airplane passes by, and the train makes a noise, and the traffic on the road and the birds singing in the trees...close your mind to everything. Just let there be only a small keyhole available to me; listen only to me. That's how the scientist listens; he looks through a keyhole into existence.
The mystic comes out of the room, stands under the sky, utterly open to everything. That is the other way of listening, the way a meditator listens. Then you go on listening to me, and the chirping of the birds goes on as a background to it. And what I am saying the chirping of the birds cannot disturb -- no, not at all. It enhances its beauty; it gives it color, it gives it music And not only the chirping of the birds but the airplane passing by and sudden noise create more silence in contrast.
When the airplane has passed by, you are suddenly listening to me on a deeper level. And while the airplane is passing and the noise is there, you listen to both. You don't become disturbed. You don't say inside, "This stupid airplane is disturbing me." The airplane cannot disturb you. But if you say inside, "This stupid plane is disturbing me," your SAYING it will be a disturbance; when you are saying it you will lose track of me. The airplane cannot disturb you, but your reaction to it is bound to.
Listening meditatively means all that is is accepted, welcomed. In all its multiplicity the universe is received. You are simply open from all sides to all that is happening. And you will be surprised' It brings such a great silence, such exquisite silence, such profound silence.
Concentration tires you, meditation never tires you. But it is difficult for everybody, not only for the scientist -- because we have become accustomed to a certain pattern of looking at things. You will have to melt your pattern; you will have to become a little more liquid, fluid, and meditation will come to you. Don't be worried about it being difficult for the scientist; that idea can create difficulty. Once you have accepted the idea that it is difficult then it will be difficult. Don't bring that idea; that will become auto- hypnotic, it will become a suggestion. It is not difficult: meditation is the simplest and the easiest thing in the world. We have just become accustomed to concentration. We have been told since childhood to concentrate: from the primary school to the university we have been trained for concentration. This is a kind of habituation; it takes a little time to drop the old habit and to learn something which is not a habit but your very nature.
YOU SAY: WHY HAS THERE NEVER BEEN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE INNER AND THE OUTER SCIENCES, THE SCIENCE OF GENTLENESS AND LOVE AND THE SCIENCE OF AGGRESSION AND DEATH, LIVE IN HARMONY?
Now the time has come. Everything can happen only at a particular time. Religion has come to its ultimate peak in the Buddhas; now science is also coming to an ultimate peak.
And only when two things have grown is a meeting possible.
A seed cannot meet a tree; the seed will have to become a tree. Only then, high in the winds, in the clouds, can they whisper to each other, can they fall in love with each other, can they embrace each other, hug each other -- can they have a dialogue. But a seed cannot have a dialogue with a grown-up tree; it is impossible. The seed will not know the language, the tree will not understand the language of the seed.
Religion has been in a mature state for almost five thousand years. Science is still growing, coming to maturity. Hence I say this time is one of the most precious times.
You are fortunate to be alive today, because something immensely great is going to happen -- and that is the meeting of science and religion, the meeting of West and East, the meeting of the extrovert mind and the introvert mind. It will create the new man who will be able to move easily to the outside or into the inside, who will be able to move easily into the extrovert world of science and into the introvert world of religion -- just as you move outside your house into the garden and back into the house. It is not a problem; you don't need any reconciliation. You need not make a great effort each time you come out of your house onto the lawn -- you simply come out! It is feeling cold inside, and the sun is beautiful and warm outside: you come onto the lawn, you sit on the lawn. Later on when it becomes too hot you simply move in because there is coolness inside.
Just as easily as you come out of your house and go in, a total man will be able to move into science and religion; the inner and outer will both be his.
Carl Gustav Jung has divided human beings into two: the extroverts and the introverts.
His categorization is relevant for the past but will be utterly useless for the future, because the future man will be BOTH together. In the past, we have always been categorizing in this way, but the future man will not be a man and will not be a woman. I am not saying biologically -- biologically the woman will be a woman, and the man will be a man -- but spiritually the future man will have as many feminine qualities as the woman, and the woman will have as many masculine qualities as the man. Spiritually they will never be labeled as man or woman any more. And that will be the real liberation -- not only the liberation of women, but the liberation of men too: liberation from straitjackets, liberation from imprisoning categories, liberation from all labels.
Man is not going to be Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian; man is not going to be Indian, German, English; man is not going to be white or black. Not that colors will disappear -- the white man will be white and the black will be black -- but these will become irrelevant, trivial, meaningless; they will not be decisive. The new man will have a universal consciousness, and the foundation will be laid by the meeting of science and religion.
The second question
CAN BUDDHA OR CHRIST BE CREATED OR DEVELOPED OUT OF EVERY COMMON HUMAN BEING? OR IS BUDDHA OR CHRIST ONLY BORN AS SUCH? EVERY MAN IS BUDDHA, EVERY MAN IS CHRIST: I FEEL IT IS NOT TRUE.
Bal Krishna Bharti,
THE BUDDHA OR THE CHRIST CANNOT BE CREATED because the Buddha is your intrinsic nature. It need not be created. It has not to be developed either; it is already there, it is already the case. It has only to be unfolded, it has to be discovered.
The treasure is there; you have to find the key to unlock the door. The treasure is not to be created, the treasure is not to be developed; you only have to find the right key. You have forgotten about the key -- the key is also with you. God provides you with everything that is needed on the journey; you come absolutely prepared. But society disturbs every child, distorts every child, because a Buddha or a Christ is useless to the society; they don't serve any utilitarian purpose.
What can you do with a Buddha? What purpose is he going to serve? He will be a beautiful flower, but flowers don't serve any purpose. Flowers have to be enjoyed, appreciated, loved. You can dance around them, you can drink their beauty, but they are not commodities in the marketplace. What can you do with the full moon? You cannot sell it, you cannot purchase it, you cannot be profited by it. You cannot have a bigger bank balance because of the full moon.
Hence the society is not interested in a Buddha or a Christ. Buddha is a full moon, a Buddha is a lotus flower, a Buddha is a bird on the wing. The Buddha is a poem, the Buddha is a song, the Buddha is a celebration. Because they are utterly beyond utility, the society is not interested in them; it is really afraid of these people. It wants you to be slaves, to be cogs in the wheel of the society. It wants you to be servants to the vested interests. It does not want you to be rebels -- and a Buddha is bound to be a rebel.
A Buddha cannot follow stupid commandments given by the politicians or the moralists or the puritans or the priests. And these are the people who are exploiting humanity, oppressing humanity. They start destroying every possibility of every human child ever becoming a Buddha. They start crippling, they start poisoning. And down the centuries they have learnt many ways to poison. It is a miracle that once in a while a child has escaped -- must have somehow been a mistake on the part Of the priests and the politicians that a child escaped from the trap and became a Buddha.
Bal Krishna, every man is born to be a Buddha, every man has the seed of Buddhahood in him. But I can understand your question.
You say: I FEEL IT IS NOT TRUE.
Yes, if you look at the masses it doesn't seem to be true. If it were true there would be many Buddhas, but one rarely hears about a Buddha. We only know that somewhere, twenty-five centuries ago, a certain Siddhartha Gautam became Buddha. Who knows whether it is true or not? It may be just a myth, a beautiful story, a consolation, an opium for the masses, to keep them hoping that one day they will also become Buddhas. Who knows whether Buddha is a historic reality?
And so many stories have been woven around the Buddha that he looks more like a mythological figure than a reality. When he becomes enlightened, gods come from heaven, play beautiful music, dance around him. Now how can this be history? And flowers shower on him from the sky -- flowers of gold and silver, flowers of diamonds and emeralds. Who can believe that this is history?
This is not history, true, I agree. This is poetry. But it symbolizes something historical, because something so unique has happened in Buddha that there is no other way to describe it than to bring poetry in. Real flowers have not showered on Buddha, but whenever somebody becomes enlightened the whole existence rejoices -- because we are not separate from it.
When you have a headache your whole body suffers, and when the headache goes your whole body feels good, a well-being. We are NOT separate from existence. And until you are a Buddha you are a headache -- a headache to yourself, a headache to others, a headache to the whole existence. You are a thorn in the flesh of existence. When the headache disappears, when the thorn becomes a flower, when one man becomes a Buddha, a great pain that he was creating for himself and others disappears.
Certainly -- I vouch for it, I am a witness to it -- certainly the who]e existence rejoices, dances, sings. How to say it? It is nothing visible; photographs cannot be taken of it.
Hence the poetry; hence these metaphors, symbols, similes.
It is said that when Buddha was born his mother immediately died. It may not be a historical fact, it may be. But my feeling is that it is not a historical fact -- because it is said that whenever a Buddha is born, the mother immediately dies. That is not true. There have been many Buddhas -- Jesus' mother did not die, Mahavira's mother did not die, Krishna's mother did not die. Maybe Siddhartha Gautam's mother died, but it cannot be said that whenever a Buddha is born the mother dies, not historically.
But I know it has some significance of its own which is not historical. By 'the mother' is not really meant the mother; by 'the mother' is meant your whole past. You are reborn when you become a Buddha; your whole past functions as a womb, the mother. And the moment a Buddha is born, the moment you become enlightened, your whole past dies.
That death is necessary.
Now, THIS IS absolutely true. It happened with Mahavira, with Krishna, with Jesus; it has happened always. To say it, it is said that whenever a Buddha is born the mother dies.
You will have to be very very sympathetic to understand these things.
I can understand that it is difficult, looking at the greater part of humanity, to see that there is any possibility of every human being becoming a Christ or a Buddha. Looking at a seed can you believe that one day it can become a lotus? Just looking at the seed, dissecting the seed, will you be able to infer, conclude, that each seed is going to become a lotus? There seems to be no relationship at all. The seed looks nothing, and when you dissect it you find nothing in it, only emptiness. Still each seed carries a lotus within it -- and each human being carries the Buddha within him.
YOU ASK ME: CAN BUDDHA OR CHRIST BE CREATED OR DEVELOPED...?
No, they cannot be created and they cannot be developed: they have to be discovered, they have to be uncovered. they are already there. You just have to reach your innermost core and you will find the Buddha enshrined, you will find the Christ. Christ and Buddha mean the same: the ultimate state of consciousness.
And you say:...OUT OF EVERY COMMON HUMAN BEING?
I have never come across a single common human being. I have come across thousands of people, I have looked into the depths of thousands of different people, but I have never come across a common, ordinary man. Every human being is unique, extraordinary, uncommon, exceptional. God never creates common human beings, God only creates unique consciousnesses .
Drop this idea of a common human being. This is an insult to humanity.
And you say: IS BUDDHA OR CHRIST ONLY BORN AS SUCH?
No. Nobody is born as such. We are all born alike. That too is again a trick of the mind to avoid growing. If it is settled that a Buddha is born as a Buddha, and a Christ is the ONLY begotten son of God, and Krishna is a reincarnation of God, this is a beautiful strategy to avoid: "Then what can we do? If we are not Buddhas it is not our fault -- we are not BORN like that. And if Buddha is a Buddha, so what? He is BORN a Buddha. No credit to him; he has not done anything special. If we were born like Buddha we would be Buddhas too. But we are born as COMMON human beings."
This is a strategy. Very cunning is the mind, and subtle is its cunningness: beware of it.
Nobody is born as a Buddha yet everybody brings the potential of being a Buddha. And don't say, "I feel it is not true" -- because how can you feel unless you have become a Buddha? You can only infer, you can only think, you cannot feel.
Listen to me! I FEEL that everybody can become a Buddha. And I feel it because I was also a common human being...and then suddenly this explosion, then suddenly this light, then suddenly this meditativeness blossomed. You can also become a Buddha; it is your birthright. Don't be tricked by your mind -- remain alert, aware.
The third question
I FIND MYSELF MOSTLY ATTRACTED TO WOMEN AND VERY RARELY DEEPLY TO A MAN. I AM A LITTLE BOTHERED ABOUT IT. COULD YOU PLEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Ma Prem Loka,
SEX HAS BEEN CALLED THE ORIGINAL SIN -- it is neither original nor sin. Even before Adam and Eve ever ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge they were having sex, and all the other animals in the Garden of Eden were having sex. The only thing that happened after the eating of the fruit of knowledge was awareness: they became aware of it. And by becoming aware of it they became ashamed.
Why did they become ashamed? From where did this shame come? They became ashamed because they saw that they were behaving just like other animals. But what is wrong in behaving just like other animals? Man is an animal too. But the ego came in: the fruit of knowledge created the ego. It created superiority, the idea of superiority: "We are superior human beings. These foolish animals, if they do certain things they can be forgiven. But we cannot be forgiven -- this is below our dignity."
Sex is such a fundamental activity in nature that the ego of man started trying to get rid of it.
The first thing I would like you to remember: sex is natural. There is no need to make any effort to get rid of it -- although I know a moment comes when you transcend it, that is something totally different. It is not by your effort that you can get rid of it; if you try to get rid of it you will fall a victim of perversions. Because for centuries man has been trying to get rid of sex he has created many kinds of perversions. Homosexuality has arisen because we have deprived people of heterosexuality. Homosexuality was born as a religious phenomenon in the monasteries because we forced monks to live together in one place and nuns to live in one place, and we separated them by great walls.
Still now there are Catholic monasteries in Europe where for twelve hundred years not a single woman has entered -- not even a six-months baby, female baby, has been allowed to enter. What kind of people are living there who are afraid of a six-month-old girl?
What kind of people? Must have become very much perverted, must be very much afraid they might do something. They cannot trust themselves.
Homosexuality is BOUND to happen. It happens only in monasteries and in the army -- because these are the two places where we don't allow men and women to mix. Or it happens in boys' and girls' hostels; there also we don't allow them to mix. The whole phenomenon of homosexuality is a by-product of this whole stupid upbringing.
Homosexuality will disappear from the world the day we allow men and women to meet naturally.
From their very childhood we start separating them. If a boy is playing with girls we condemn him. We say, "What are you doing? Are you a sissy? You are a boy, you are a man! Be a man, don't play with girls!" If a boy is playing with dolls we immediately condemn him: "This is for girls."
If a girl is trying to climb a tree we stop her immediately: "This is not right; this is against feminine grace." And if a girl tries and persists and is rebellious she is called a tomboy; she is not respected. We start creating these ugly divisions. Girls enjoy climbing trees; it is such a beautiful experience. And what is wrong in playing with dolls? A boy can carry dolls, because in life he will have to meet dolls and then he will be at a loss as to what to do!
Loka, this whole phenomenon has nothing to do with you personally. It is a social disease spread all over the world.
Two English gentlemen of the old school were discussing old acquaintances one evening in their London club. "What," asked one, "ever became of old Cholmondeley?"
"Why, didn't you hear? Cholmondeley went to Africa on a game hunt, and, by Jove, the chap took up with an ape!"
"An ape? Is the old boy queer?"
"Heavens, no! It was a female " If it is a female, even though an ape, it is perfectly okay.
We create these conditionings so deeply that out of so much conditioning sometimes people start revolting against them. Sex should be taken VERY naturally -- we have been taking IT very seriously. Either we condemn IT as ugly, animalistic, or we raise it to something divine, but we never accept it as human and we never accept it as fun.
Basically it is fun, it is a good sport! And humanity is going to remain burdened with ugly nonsense if we don't accept its beauty as a sport. It is good physical activity too, and the best of exercises.
You can ask the heart specialists. Now they say sexual activity prevents heart attacks.
One thing is certain, that no man has ever had a heart attack while making love. In every other kind of activity heart attacks have happened, but never making love. Have you ever heard that anybody had a heart attack making love and died? No, never. It is a natural physical activity, and fun, a good sport.
If you take it non-seriously, then there is no need to be worried even if you are attracted to women. Don't be worried -- because your worry is not going to help. It's perfectly okay. In a really free world which is unconditioned by the primitive, ignorant past, in a really enlightened world, we will accept all these things. Yes, once in a while you may love a woman or a man. Nothing is wrong in it, because inside you both are there. Each man is both a man and a woman, and each woman is both a woman and a man, because you are born out of the meeting of one man and one woman. So half of you comes from your father and half of you comes from your mother; part of you is man and part of you is woman.
So there is nothing much to be worried about. It may be that your man part is attracted towards other women, but because biologically you are a woman you feel afraid. No need to be afraid! Take things easily -- that is my basic approach. Take it easy. And by taking things easy one can go beyond them more comfortably, conveniently, quickly, than by taking things seriously. If you take them seriously you become entangled with them, you become burdened with them.
And this is not such a big problem. There are bigger problems, Loka.
The famous Greek shipowner, Ori Oristotle, was having a house built on a large piece of land in Greece. He said to the architect, "Don't disturb that tree over there, because directly under that tree is where I had my first love."
"How sentimental, Mr. Oristotle," said the architect "Right under that tree?"
"Yes," continued Ori Oristotle. "And don't touch that tree over there either, because that is where her mother stood watching while I was having my first love affair."
"Her mother just stood there while you were screwing her daughter?" asked the architect.
"Yes," said the Greek shipowner.
"But, Mr. Oristotle, what did her mother say?"
There are greater problems, Loka. Your problem is nothing -- at least you are attracted to other women, at least to other human beings. Perfectly okay. A little outlandish, but not too serious. Things like that have been happening always. Now people have become more courageous and they ask questions -- particularly in the West people have become more honest. Now no Indian will ask such a question -- not that things like that are not happening in India, they are happening, but no Indian will have courage enough to ask such a question.
Loka, you asked the question. I am happy. This is sincerity, this is authenticity. One should be able to expose oneself as one is. The West is becoming freer; the East is very much repressed. And because the East is very much repressed it will take a longer time for the East to get rid of its perversions. The West is going to transcend sooner.
When the Queen had her baby, she was being offered congratulations by hundreds of people when a certain gentleman walked by.
"What do you do for a living?"
"I'm a photographer," he replied.
"Isn't that remarkable?" said the Queen. "My brother-in-law is a photographer!"
"Isn't that remarkable," he said. "My brother-in-law is a queen."
Things like that are always happening everywhere. It is part of the human scene. So don't make much fuss about it, and don't get disturbed.
You say: I FIND MYSELF MOSTLY ATTRACTED TO WOMEN AND VERY RARELY DEEPLY TO A MAN.
Good -- at least you find yourself attracted to somebody. There is a possibility of love.
There are people so dull, so dead, so insensitive, that they only feel attracted towards money, or political power, or fame. You are in a far better situation; at least you are not in love with money. Even Ori Oristotle was in a far better situation than the people who are in love with money. But these people are not thought to be perverted. They are the REAL perverts: money is their whole life, their devotion; money is their god.
You are attracted to women: perfectly good. Go deep into relationship with women. If you make an anxiety out of it you will not be able to go deep in relationship with a woman. If you go deep in relationship with women, my understanding is that sooner or later you will find that this relationship cannot be very fulfilling, because two women are alike. And a relationship needs a certain tension to be fulfilling, a certain polarity to be fulfilling. Two women in love, or two men in love, will have a good relationship, but it will not be very spicy. It will be a little dull, monotonous, a little boring.
But if you go deeply, only then will you become aware of these things. Your anxiety will not allow you to go deep, and then your whole life you will remain interested and attracted towards women.
My approach about all problems is that if anything is there, go DEEPLY into it, so either you find the treasure, if it has any treasure, or you find that it is empty. In both cases you are enriched. If you find the treasure, of course you are enriched. If you find it is empty, you are finished with it.
Two women in relationship can't have a very great love affair. It will remain on plain ground; it will not have heights and it will not have depths. So people who are afraid of heights and depths will find it very comfortable, convenient. Hence the homosexuals are called 'gay' people. They look gay; they look far more gay than heterosexuals.
Heterosexuals are always going into turmoils -- more conflict, more fight, less understanding. It is bound to be so, because two women can understand each other far better than one man and one woman can understand each other. Two men can understand each other far better because they are of the same type, but the spark will be missing.
Yes, a certain gayness will be there, but NOT great poetry, not great romance -- mild.
The relationship will be homeopathic. It will not have adventure, surprises: safe, secure, more understanding, less conflict, less nagging.
With a man and a woman there ARE problems -- problems of misunderstanding. They live in totally different worlds; they are two different poles of consciousness. The woman thinks intuitively, the man thinks intellectually, hence there is no meeting. The woman simply jumps to conclusions without going into any process of thought. And the man goes step by step, comes to a conclusion. The man tries hard to come to a conclusion and the woman simply jumps to the conclusion. She has an intuitive feeling. Hence you cannot deceive a woman, particularly not your wife. That IS impossible; nobody has ever been able to do it. She will immediately see through you -- through and through, because her way of seeing is not your way of seeing. She comes from the back door, and you don't know that you have a back door too. You arrange everything at the front door and she comes from the back door and knows all the ins and outs.
The husband comes home prepared. What he is going to say, how he is going to answer -- he rehearses everything. And the moment he looks at the woman all rehearsing goes to the winds and he is almost like a small child, stuttering. Even a very great person like Napoleon was very much afraid of women. His own wife he was very much afraid of, because she would see through and through him.
Man's mind goes zigzag, woman goes direct like an arrow. She does not listen to what you say, she looks into your eyes. She listens to HOW you say it. She sees your trembling hand, she sees your eyes are trying to avoid her. She does not listen to what you are saying; that is irrelevant -- she knows that that is a story; you have managed to put it together on the way from the pub to the house. But she has more attunement with your body language. And your body language is more authentic, because you cannot yet manage to control it, manage to deceive by it. Even great actors are not able to manage the body language.
For example, if somebody talks about women, you may be a celibate and you may be against all relationship and all sex -- that is all in your head -- but somebody can go on watching your eyes. Try this on some friend who is a BRAHMACHARIN, a celibate, against all relationship and sex, and all those ugly things -- just try this on him. Just start describing Sophia Loren naked: all the curves and the beautiful body. And don't listen to what he says, look at his eyes. His pupils will become big -- that he cannot control, that is beyond his control. The moment you say, "Sophia Loren!" his eyes are no more the same.
Watch how he is moving his body: he will sit erect. If he was leaning back he will come forward, closer, to listen. Although he is saying, "Nonsense! What are you talking about?
This is all dirty," he is all alert. Just now he was yawning; now he no longer yawns.
This I have tried. Whenever I see that somebody is yawning somewhere, I know now a joke is needed -- and immediately the yawning disappears. Even Sheela comes back from her sleep! Once she is certain that now I am going to talk metaphysics she falls asleep, she goes to sleep, she takes a rest. But the moment I start a joke, even in her sleep she remains that much alert: immediately she is back.
The body has its own language just as the mind has its own language. The spirit also has its own language. A man and woman are bound to be in conflict, but that conflict takes them far away and again and again creates situations for mini honeymoons.
A homosexual relationship is a little saccharine -- too sweet, a little bit nauseating. But a man/woman relationship is always on the rocks. You cannot fall asleep, the other will not allow it. They go on goading each other. And they are such different worlds; THAT is the attraction.
Loka, go as deeply as possible in your relationships with women -- don't be worried.
Soon you will see that there is a different kind of relationship that can exist only between polar opposites. Then go into a deep relationship with a man, because only by going deep in relationship with a man will you be able to know that all relationships fall short. Even the man/woman relationship falls short; it never brings you the contentment it promises.
And only by your own experience -- not by what Buddhas say, not by what I say -- only by your own experience will you one day be able to go beyond all relationships. Then you can be happy alone. And the person who can be happy alone is REALLY an individual. If your happiness depends on the other, you are a slave; you are not yet free, you are in bondage.
When you are happy alone, when you can live with yourself, there is no intrinsic necessity to be in relationship. That does not mean that you will not relate. But to relate is one thing, and to be in relationship is quite another. Relationship is a kind of bondage, relating is sharing. You will relate with many people, you will share your joy with many people, but you will not depend on anyone in particular and you will not allow anybody else to depend on you. You will not be dependent, and you will not allow anybody to be dependent on you. Then you live out of freedom, out of joy, out of love.
You say: I AM A LITTLE BOTHERED ABOUT IT.
Don't be bothered about it at all, not even a little. En joy it. It is not your fault. You have been brought up by Christians, Jainas, Hindus, Buddhists -- it is not your fault. What can you do? You come into a world which is already conditioned, and you come so innocent, so clean, unaware of what is going to happen to you. And your parents start writing on you, and the whole society starts writing things on you. It is not your fault, it is simply symptomatic of an ill society.
We have to transform the society. But the only way to transform it is to transform individuals; there is no other way, there is no shortcut. Enjoy it, it is good -- not enough but still good. It will lead you into heterosexual relationship; that is a little better. Even that is not going to satisfy. Then that will lead you into meditativeness, into solitude, into that beauty, that benediction, which happens only when you are alone.
That's what sannyas is all about: learning how to be alone and yet joyous.
Be Still and Know